Should smoking of cigarettes be illegalized in the publicity?

[Captain Karnage]

I hate to be that person who says but, you have to think about the children's health.

when I was a kid I had an asthma problem and I helped around my family's auction house.

The problem was that at the time smoking was allowed indoors in the state of TN.

I ended up working in a small building with little ventilation full of smokers and suffered several mild asthma attacks until they passed the no public smoking bill. I can't stand people smoking around others because some people have no idea how easily an asthma attack can occur.

also most of my recent ancestors have died from lung cancer or accident so i really have no idea what naturally kills off my family

Edited March 8, 2015 by Captain Karnage

[SirBrickingtonCrushworthy]

I personally hate vapes, I hate smoking, but at the same time, I feel like we live in a hypocritical time where we're voting to restrict the hell out of cigarettes, but marijuana legislation is all about legalization. I'm well aware it's coming into legality under restriction, but my opinion is really hazy when the same people at the local college are both proposing to ban smoking from campus entirely and then are, as they have been in my state, the biggest pro-blaze it insufferable fools you've seen. For the record, I live in Alaska.

Going back to cigs, I think that the laws we currently have are decent, at least where I live. It's also the crowds I run with, I have a few friends who smoke cigars and cigarettes, but when I'm with them I generally try to ask that they respect my requests to not breathe the smoke, and it works out alright.

I'm pretty bad at this, anyone have experiences where they're unhappy?

[Rowiehz]

In my country there's already a law that states that you cannot smoke in cafes and restaurants anymore which resulted into the biggest shit storm when it was introduced a few years ago. Now, it doesn't seem that most of these places even keep themselves to that rule anymore and nobody really seems to care.

Should smoking be forbidden in public? As much as I'd like it due my sensitive lungs and the fact I used to have asthma- I think it's absolutely impossible to keep smoking from happening. I mean, as mentioned above, we even have a rule stating they can't in some places and they still do, no matter what you throw at them.

I do think it has improved a lot over the years. Because when I was a kid, after my parents were done with their sport we always 'hung out' to chat with people of all ages in a meeting room. However, many people smoked so much that the entire room was pure white because of the smoke. And I know that some of these people sat in this space every single day for two straight hours in this clouded mess. Not to mention young children as me. And nobody ever pointed out: "Hey, might this be dangerous for our children?"

Of course not, nobody thinks of the consequences of smoking when they're all cooped up in an inviting atmosphere and happily chatting away. Back then, there were barely any anti-smoke or smoke areas. Everyone just did it wherever they pleased. Nowadays, there are. Still not aplenty, but they're coming.

I work at a hospital and over there it's strictly forbidden to smoke in, or within the area surrounding the building. Somewhere near the parking area (which is not as far away as it sounds) there's a special smoking area, lined with blue marks so you know where it's allowed to smoke, where visitors, colleagues and patients can smoke away as much as they want at any time of the day. And nobody seems to have made a complain about it in the six years I've worked there.

So from rational thinking, I say smoking shouldn't be forbidden, but limited to certain areas. So there's at least a place for people who cannot endure the smoke due whatever reason- to walk around and do their thing without inhaling smoke the entire time. And of course, for people who do smoke to still have their treasured 'smoke 'n chatting' spot.

There will always be people who have complaints though, because it's often a matter of 'freedom' of your own decisions. And when you limit those, you'll always set someone off who feels like they can't do what they want anymore. And I think that's also what makes it a complicated matter.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Rowiehz

[Spikey]

In my country there's already a law that states that you cannot smoke in cafes and restaurants anymore which resulted into the biggest shit storm when it was introduced a few years ago. Now, it doesn't seem that most of these places even keep themselves to that rule anymore and nobody really seems to care.

Hey, another Dutchie. Funny how our experiences don't match up at all. Most places are now smoke free, and it is really, really noticable to me if it is not. Again, it is mainly to protect people in their working environment, nothing else. Especially in places that are open during daytime, or where food is served, it seems to be somewhat socially accepted that you don't smoke anymore. Smoking still happens in a few instances; 1) smoking areas or outside, this is legal of course, 2) in larger clubs by people that think that can get away with it in a large crowd (not very social if a place actually tries to abide by the law) and 3) some cafés and other clubs outright ignore the prohibition, and risk a fine. Haven't seen much of number 3 as of late though.

[Rowiehz]

Hey, another Dutchie. Funny how our experiences don't match up at all. Most places are now smoke free, and it is really, really noticable to me if it is not. Again, it is mainly to protect people in their working environment, nothing else. Especially in places that are open during daytime, or where food is served, it seems to be somewhat socially accepted that you don't smoke anymore. Smoking still happens in a few instances; 1) smoking areas or outside, this is legal of course, 2) in larger clubs by people that think that can get away with it in a large crowd (not very social if a place actually tries to abide by the law) and 3) some cafés and other clubs outright ignore the prohibition, and risk a fine. Haven't seen much of number 3 as of late though.

Ah I guess it really depends on where you're at, then? I live in a town myself, but even in the nearby city there's only a few places that loyally stick with the rule. But in general, over here they really don't seem to care. Then again, regular check-ups to see if they're actually holding up to the rule don't really happen. So nobody really seems to be at much danger for getting a fine.

[Spikey]

I'm mostly in Amsterdam and Rotterdam for working, living and hitting the town. I guess the check ups are just much stronger.

[Elibean Spaceman]

I personally think smoking should be banned. I hate how I see cigarette shops when I'm traveling, especially since smoking can kill people.

[Life]

I personally think smoking should be banned. I hate how I see cigarette shops when I'm traveling, especially since smoking can kill people.

Cars and planes can kill people. Let's outlaw travel next. And T.V. and computers since they can emit rays and give cancer.

Logic is flawed here.

[ErrantDShepherd]

Cars and planes can kill people. Let's outlaw travel next. And T.V. and computers since they can emit rays and give cancer.

Logic is flawed here.

I do agree that the logic is flawed here... But with this quoted post. :\

Transportation, and electronics serve a worthwhile purpose in society. Accidents occur, but the electronic rays giving cancer is not something that has been definitely proven... Many of our electronics are purposefully manufactured to emit the least possible amount of radiation possible or fall below a certain non-harmful thresh hold.(the irony of posting this using an electronic device is delicious XD)

Cigarettes however through multiple studies have been proven to increase the risk of throat, lung and many other types of cancers. That does not mean anyone who smokes is guaranteed cancer... But aside from the risk of cancer there have been numerous other health risks associated with smoking.

...smoking serves no useful purpose in society. Any of the stress relief, social aspects or whatever excuse people want to give to support it are things that can be done through other non-toxic coping methods.

...I have a number of friends who smoke, and Godparents who smoke. Its a weird situation because you can't fully claim that it is their decision to continue smoking when they are addicted. Its ridiculously bad for your health, and second-hand smoke is bad for everyone else around you.

I dunno that it is really possible to completely eliminate it... But how is it helpful in any way shape or form? Its a toxic addiction that impacts the health of the user and those around them... It doesn't help to go off on smokers, if they choose to impact their own health... They have to deal with it.

BUT it pisses me completely off when someone is smoking by me or kids... Especially when standing right beside a no smoking sign. Your health is your own problem, but keep your toxic smoke the hell away from me and kids.

[Tryhard]

how about alcohol (as detailed on the last page) and junk food? both are unnecessary and obviously lead to health problems, and the last time I checked, the prohibition didn't go so well. though it is amusing to imagine low-key speakeasys for fatty burgers.

Unless you plan to ban these as well as other "unnecessary things that just endanger people" as vague as that is (not going to happen), then I don't see how this makes sense at all.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Tryhard

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

Cars and planes can kill people. Let's outlaw travel next. And T.V. and computers since they can emit rays and give cancer.

Logic is flawed here

Seriously you can't compare the consequences of vehicles and electronic communication tools with cigarettes.

I know cars are a common and serious problem especially in the US or in emergent countries. And it will be even worse in the future based on the massive population growth in the emergent countries.

Though the automakers try to do their best to make the cars more ecofriendly in near future.

[ErrantDShepherd]

how about alcohol (as detailed on the last page) and junk food? both are unnecessary and obviously lead to health problems, and the last time I checked, the prohibition didn't go so well. though it is amusing to imagine low-key speakeasys for fatty burgers.

Unless you plan to ban these as well as other "unnecessary things that just endanger people" as vague as that is (not going to happen), then I don't see how this makes sense at all.

I fail to see how taking steps to eliminate or restrict smoking is a slippery slope into widespread oppression and restriction of junk food, alcohol and other activities. Restricting one unnecessary activity does not mean all unnecessary activities are in danger of being restricted.

Unnecessary is a loaded term I will admit, but lets look at the term necessity. Smoking, Alcohol and Junk Food can all be described as unnecessary and bad for your health. But whereas alcohol and junk food are obviously not good for ones health, they do at least serve a purpose or take care of a necessity in sustenance/nutrition... They are not good sources, but they do have some purpose as they will keep your body going if starving, as well actually certain types of alcohol in moderation, like red wines have had health benefits.(likely more due to the grapes imo, but eh) Alcohol was actually the liquid/drink of choice for centuries as it was much safer to drink than most water sources.

----

The idea of banning McDonald's or prohibition of fast food places is pretty hilarious, I will give you that as well. :)

Junkfood speakeasys... "I got the good stuff on the grill out back. D:"

Where those two further differ from smoking and cigarettes however is that the process of smoking directly effects your environment and others around you. If someone drinks or eats junk food, they are not helping their health but their consumption only directly affects themselves. Alcoholism and Obesity can result from over-consumption, but if someone is drinking a beer or eating a burger beside me, it will not have any effect on my health.

Whereas if someone is smoking beside me or a child, they are literally spewing toxic fumes into our air space. Air pollution is a problem enough in some areas, why should I champion someone directly polluting my breathing space or the air of a developing child? ...I still haven't seen any benefits from the practice either, or what necessity smoking is fulfilling.

----

...I honestly would love to see the entire world quit smoking, but I am not the world's policeman, and it is not easy as it is literally addictive, so even their "choice" to continue smoking can be called into question. That said, if people were not spewing toxic fumes in public spaces by smoking, then I could completely stand behind the idea its their own body and their own problem to deal with, even if I personally think they should quit.

Restricting air-space is something already in place that helps out quite a bit, but it'd be even better if some people would just respect others right to clean air and actually follow the no-smoking signs.

Edited March 23, 2015 by TheErrantShepherd

[Spikey]

how about alcohol (as detailed on the last page) and junk food? both are unnecessary and obviously lead to health problems, and the last time I checked, the prohibition didn't go so well. though it is amusing to imagine low-key speakeasys for fatty burgers.

Unless you plan to ban these as well as other "unnecessary things that just endanger people" as vague as that is (not going to happen), then I don't see how this makes sense at all.

So do you think that drugs with less harmful effects than alcohol should be legalized? Like mushrooms, weed, MDMA?

[Tryhard]

So do you think that drugs with less harmful effects than alcohol should be legalized? Like mushrooms, weed, MDMA?

Generally that's what people argue when talking about those, yet alcohol is okay.

I have no interest in those and not any burning passion for supporting legalization but I will say that the war on drugs/the equivalents is a huge failure for the purposes of demonizing people.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Tryhard

[Spikey]

I've no personal interest in them either, I just think we should legalize them to have more control on them (eta; in terms of safety, so that you know that you're not taking elephant drugs or anything similar dangerous) / take away the criminal business in them.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Spikey

[Esau of Isaac]

I fail to see how taking steps to eliminate or restrict smoking is a slippery slope into widespread oppression and restriction of junk food, alcohol and other activities. Restricting one unnecessary activity does not mean all unnecessary activities are in danger of being restricted.

It calls into question the line of reasoning that a governing body is using when deciding what its citizens can and cannot do. If logic is consistent, then it would follow that a government which bans one unnecessary activity will seek to ban others of a similar nature.

Unnecessary is a loaded term I will admit, but lets look at the term necessity. Smoking, Alcohol and Junk Food can all be described as unnecessary and bad for your health. But whereas alcohol and junk food are obviously not good for ones health, they do at least serve a purpose or take care of a necessity in sustenance/nutrition... They are not good sources, but they do have some purpose as they will keep your body going if starving, as well actually certain types of alcohol in moderation, like red wines have had health benefits.(likely more due to the grapes imo, but eh) Alcohol was actually the liquid/drink of choice for centuries as it was much safer to drink than most water sources.

Alcohol's benefits are negligible and debatable based on the amount and period of time required to consume it to gain said benefits, it is as much a poison as tobacco in most regards. Not that you were arguing strongly in the opposite. Although, debating from a point of view of necessity is wildly inane in any modern first-world nation. The majority of anyone's life is spent doing unnecessary things, with negative results to the world at large. The amount of harmful pollutants that are released into the environment to support the electricity usage of the world, for example, is undeniably negative, for a benefit that certainly extends beyond what is required to sustain life.

Where those two further differ from smoking and cigarettes however is that the process of smoking directly effects your environment and others around you. If someone drinks or eats junk food, they are not helping their health but their consumption only directly affects themselves. Alcoholism and Obesity can result from over-consumption, but if someone is drinking a beer or eating a burger beside me, it will not have any effect on my health.

Whereas if someone is smoking beside me or a child, they are literally spewing toxic fumes into our air space. Air pollution is a problem enough in some areas, why should I champion someone directly polluting my breathing space or the air of a developing child? ...I still haven't seen any benefits from the practice either, or what necessity smoking is fulfilling.

Polluting your breathing space? Unless you're in a closed environment, in which case laws already exist to protect against it, it's a non-issue. Smokers don't release smog into the atmosphere that hangs over peoples' heads, it disperses quickly with minimal exposure to others.

[Life]

So do you think that drugs with less harmful effects than alcohol should be legalized? Like mushrooms, weed, MDMA?

Absolutely.

Marijuana is much less dangerous than alcohol and has medical benefits to boot. Why shouldn't soft drugs be legalized and regulated?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Man Bun

[Moishe Oofnik]

Absolutely.

Marijuana is much less dangerous than alcohol and has medical benefits to boot. Why should soft drugs be legalized and regulated?

JUSTICE IS SERVED

[DeadGame]

People shouldn't worry about Cigarettes that much and realize the much greater danger of Alcohol.

If you smoke, you only damage yourself, if that's what you want, go ahead.

If you drink, you might endanger others aswell. Yet advertisement for alcohol is allowed and champagne for kids is a common thing to find in supermarkets.

Garbage.

[Kon]

If you smoke, you only damage yourself, if that's what you want, go ahead.

Wat

Have you never heard of secondhand smoke? It's this nasty thing that has taken several millions lives of people who didn't even smoke. Unlike alcohol cigarettes are highly and actively harmful regardless of the amount consumed, and just being around smokers can cause permanent damage.

Seriously.

[DeadGame]

Wat

Have you never heard of secondhand smoke? It's this nasty thing that has taken several millions lives of people who didn't even smoke. Unlike alcohol cigarettes are highly and actively harmful regardless of the amount consumed, and just being around smokers can cause permanent damage.

Seriously.

"Several million lives", "just being around smokers can cause permanent damage" are you kidding me? Who the hell told you this garbage, extremistic people?

That's the most made up stuff I've ever read, you must be under age if you actually believe that.

I don't think there was a single proven incident of someone dying from passive smoking, although, you absolutely shouldn't smoke with kids around (or on the way).

Also, why the hell would you question the danger of alcohol when more people die of alcohol poisoning and car accidents than of lung cancer?

Do some research instead of repeating what extremists say, most of it is often made up.

Edit: Sorry for getting a little too vocal. It's just that I'm getting really furious whenever people deny the danger of alcohol and depict smoking as the most dangerous thing on earth. I don't even drink or smoke myself, but even I know that alcohol is the much greater danger for yourself and others. Hell, I've seen people having to go to hospital and almost dying from alcohol poisoning!

Edited April 29, 2015 by FierceRagnar

[Skynstein]

"Several million lives", "just being around smokers can cause permanent damage" are you kidding me? Who the fuck told you this shit, some extremistic people?

That's the most made up garbage I've ever read, you must be stupid or under age if you actually believe that.

I don't think there was a single proven incident of someone dying from passive smoking, although, you absolutely shouldn't smoke with kids around (or on the way).

Also, why the hell would you question the danger of alcohol when more people die of alcohol poisoning and car accidents than of lung cancer?

Do some research instead of repeating what the extremists say like a parrot.

Passive smoking is a problem and one of the reasons there are restricted areas for smoking.

I don't think smoking should be banned, but I'm fine with regulating it, as I would with drugs that are potentially much more dangerous, like cocaine and derivatives.

[Kon]

"Several million lives", "just being around smokers can cause permanent damage" are you kidding me? Who the fuck told you this shit, some extremistic people?

That's the most made up garbage I've ever read, you must be stupid or under age if you actually believe that.

I don't think there was a single proven incident of someone dying from passive smoking, although, you absolutely shouldn't smoke with kids around (or on the way).

Also, why the hell would you question the danger of alcohol when more people die of alcohol poisoning and car accidents than of lung cancer?

Do some research instead of repeating what the extremists say like a parrot.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know the Surgeon General was some dumbass extremist. Clearly I should listen to some random asshole on the internet, because they obviously know better than all of these organizations.

And I didn't question the dangers of alcohol, I was pointing out that smoking harms more than just yourself. So way to make an ass out yourself.

[Raven]

yeah, passive smoke is a real thing, and can be serious depending on how much you actually take in.

not just some made up extremist bullshit

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/2289.aspx?categoryid=53&

[Soapbar]

So here's the thing:

Is smoking a problem: Yes

Is secondhand smoke a problem: Yes

Is there anything we can really do about it: No. You ban smoking in public, people do it anyways (As smokers generally outnumber the police and nobody really cares anyways). You ban cigarettes? People roll there own cigs. You ban tobacco in general? Then we go back to the prohibition area, and of course, we all know how that went (Do not pretend we won't. Tobacco's nicotine element makes it highly addictive so smokers will generally try to get their hands on it even if it means their finacial situation goes down the drain).

Really, it's a lose-lose situation whatever you try to do. The only thing there is to do really is try and get the message out that smoking in public areas is bad and you should feel bad, but people have proved time and time again that they really don't give two shits (also any advertising like that doesn't affect people who are currently smokers, due to addiction)